9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 & M.P.Nos.2 and 2 of 2014 in W.P.Nos.23794 and 25501/2014 & CMP.Nos.19848 and 19849/2016 in W.A.Nos.1609 & 1610/2016, W.A.No.244 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2017 - S. Manikumar And Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. V. Ajaykumar For the Respondents : Mr. T. P. Manokaran, Mr.K.R.Harish, Addl. Govt. Pleader (Pondy) JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. Manikumar, J. ) The petitioner engaged in the business of purchase and sale of live chicken and also assessee, on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Mahe, has challenged G.O.Ms.No.68/F2/2011 dated 31.12.2011 by which, by inserting an entry, live chicken sold in Mahe, was sought to be taxed at the rate of 5% w.e.f. 01.01.2012. Contending inter alia that only in Mahe region, tax was sought to be levied at 5% and that the same is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Petition No.28497/2013 has been filed. 2. Taking note of the geographical position of the Union Territory of Puducherry, prevailing rate of tax for live chicken in Kerala, decision of the Government of Puducherry to prevent smuggling and to reduce the disparity, in the rate of tax betwe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2012 (Act V/2012). He therefore submitted, the impugned Government Order No.68/F2/2011 dated 31.12.2011, by which the said Act, has been notified, has been rightly, upheld by a learned Single Judge. 5. On the contention that proprietors dealing in live chickens, would be burdened with tax liability, attention of this Court was drawn to the tax liability of, ₹ 13,62,73,652/- by Royal Chickens and Keiniku Chickens, who had challenged the Act. He, therefore contended, petitioners and others, are not small traders. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that unless and until, the turnover is huge, tax liability is cannot be to the tune of ₹ 13,62,73,652/-. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Adjudicating the rival contentions on the grounds that Pondicherry Value Added Tax is discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and to the power of the Government in levying tax, classification and class legislation, rate of tax levied in the proximate State, namely, Kerala, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, while upholding the validity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstitution of India. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karimbil Kunhikoman Ors., vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1962 SC 723, and Aashirwad Films vs. Union of India Ors., reported in (2007) 5 MLJ 170 (SC). 10. The legal principle deducible from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on is that a taxing statute though enjoins greater latitude, is not beyond the pale of challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution and if the legislation leads to any in quality, it may violate the equality clause. After referring to several decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to Weaver's Constitution Law and observed that class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons, arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons, all of whom stand in the same relation to the privilege granted and between whom and the persons not so favoured no reasonable distinction or substantial difference can be found justifying the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other from such privilege. It was further pointed out that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation as the same product is exempted from tax in other regions in the Union Territory of Puducherry. For the petitioners to succeed, it is not sufficient for the petitioners to state that it is a class legislation. What is required to be established is that such legislation makes an improper discrimination. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the Government of Puducherry was justified in making such a distinction and whether the same was reasonable and had a valid basis. 15. It is not in dispute that no tax is leviable in respect of sale of live chicken in the State of Tamil Nadu and State of Andhra Pradesh. The Puducherry Value Added Tax Act grants similar exemption to its dealers, who trade in the areas in the Union Territory of Puducherry adjoining the States of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh (i.e.,) Puducherry, Karaikal and Yanam. The only distinction sought to be made is for Mahe region for which tax has been imposed at the rate of 5%. The justification being, Mahe is adjoining the State of Kerala in which the sale of live chicken is taxable at 14.5% under the Kerala VAT Act. It came to the notice of the Government that the dealers like the petitioners, who deal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
